Matthew Flatt wrote on 05/07/2015 02:44 PM:
I have no problem with these names --- the `scribble` exports are
unlikely to ever collide, since we rarely resort to capital letters ---
but I can't help thinking that the language of the metadata should
specified explicitly.
Regarding `#lang mcfly
How does this really differ from literate programming?
Deren
On May 4, 2015 7:39 PM, "Neil Van Dyke" wrote:
> For purposes of embedding docs for a package in its Racket source file(s),
> anyone care whether I landgrab some names in the Scribble namespace (for
> package metadata)?
>
> I'm thinkin
Additionally if it were it's own lang extension, the tool using this
information wouldn't need to do the parsing. The reader could extract all the
;;; definitions into a submodule that the tool requires.
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 11:44:59 AM UTC-7, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I have no problem with
I have no problem with these names --- the `scribble` exports are
unlikely to ever collide, since we rarely resort to capital letters ---
but I can't help thinking that the language of the metadata should
specified explicitly.
Concretely, instead of
#lang racket/base
maybe the file should start
For purposes of embedding docs for a package in its Racket source
file(s), anyone care whether I landgrab some names in the Scribble
namespace (for package metadata)?
I'm thinking the names will generally one-word generic terms, but with
capitalization.
Example package source file with said
5 matches
Mail list logo
